EditBorrell: When Von der Leyen talks about security and defence, whom does she represent?
Nobody knows who represents the EU in the world when we talk about security and defence, says the former EU foreign affairs chief
Migration, the war in Ukraine, pressure from Russia, competition from China, the new relationship with Donald Trump’s United States, and the European Union’s difficulty in speaking with one voice. These are some of the challenges that Josep Borrell, former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission, identifies as crucial for the future of Europe. Focus Europe Italia interviewed him in Ventotene, during the seminar ‘Challenges to European Democracy’, organised by the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence fEUture at eCampus University in collaboration with the Action Committee for a United States of Europe, of which Borrell is High Patron. For the former head of European diplomacy, as well as former President of the European Parliament, one of the main sticking points remains the right of veto: “Unanimity is killing the Union,” he states, arguing that without greater decision-making capacity, the EU is unlikely to be regarded as a genuine geopolitical player.
In the interview, Borrell also identifies three major pressures on Europe: military pressure from Russia, commercial pressure from China and ‘ideological’ pressure from Trump’s United States. Added to these is an internal problem of representation and competences, which is particularly evident in security and defence matters, where the former High Representative takes issue with the growing role assumed by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Below is the full interview conducted by Focus Europe Italy Director, Roberto Castaldi.
What are the main challenges in front of the EU?
There many of them. The most mediatic one is migration, certainly after the images in Ceuta. Migration is one of the most toxic issues, which can dissolve the unity of the European Union. It is also a geopolitical issue. Migration relates us with the rest of the world. Migrants come from the rest of the world. And in the Mediterranean basin, it affects our relationship with North Africa and Sub-Saharan countries, and all countries where the migrants come from.
A second geopolitical issue is defence. Two words come to mind: Ukraine and Trump. The new relationship that the US under Trump wants to have with Europeans is a huge change. In fact, it changes everything. We have been living very comfortably under the American security umbrella, protecting us and spending on defence, while we were spending on social security. These times are over.
And Russia is attacking us. Mainly in Ukraine, but considering the attack with an explosive drone in Lipsia airport, also European countries are now under attack. This is very serious. It is like Russians bombing a European country, because to send a drone with a bomb is more or less the same thing than using an artillery shell.
What do you think of Von der Leyen stating that the European Union will answer strongly and united and meeting Rutte to discuss about the EU-NATO response?
Why is she taking the lead on that? According to the Treaty, the President of the Commission does not represent the EU on defence and foreign affairs issues. When Von der Leyen talks about security and defence, whom does she represent? Not the Union, so just the Commission. But the Commission has no competences on security and defence. And this is one of the real political problems of the EU: nobody knows who represents the EU in the world when we talk about security and defence. For the Treaty that should be the President of the European Council and the High Representative. In spite of that the President of the Commission is talking all the day about security and defence.
As the Commission is the executive of the EU, can we compare this with the fact that in many member states that prime ministers play an even larger role in foreign and defence policy, even if there are foreign and defence ministers in the member states as well?
The Commission is the executive branch of the EU for its competences, not for the other competences. And security and defence and foreign affairs are not competences of the commission.
You once said that if you are not at the table you are on the menu. What does Europe need to be able to sit at the table and maintain its independence?
Obviously, the EU needs to be more united, and agree on taking decisions that engage the Union without unanimity. [Lack of] unanimity is killing the union. Nobody considers that the European Union is a geopolitical player. Because they know perfectly that in order to take decisions it takes all the 27 to agree.
When the President of the Commission speaks, she does not have an agreement of the 27, and does not represent them. The problem is who and when and how the Union takes a position. For example, what is the position on the war in the Middle East? There is no position of the EU! Some member states are blaming Israel, and rightly so. Others are upholding Israel. Some member states consider that there is a genocide taking place in Gaza. Others consider that nothing happened and that Israel is just defending itself. There is no position of the EU, whatever the President of the Commission can say.
The same with respect to the war in Iran. Spain and others are condemning the war. Others are upholding the war. The German Chancellor said the Americans are doing the dirty job for us. What a diplomatic way of saying things! So, is there a dirty job to be done? Other member states say this is a violation of international law we can’t support.
So how do you want the world to consider the EU as a geopolitical player if we can’t even have a common position on the most important conflicts of our time?
Are we confronted with extractive imperialism by Russia, China and US? Is the EU under attack on various sides, being these military from Russia, economic from China, a mix of the two from the US between tariffs and security threats?
We are under pressure on three fronts. First, we are under war pressure from Russia. What happened in the German airfields shows that it is not a matter of Ukraine alone. There is a military pressure on our borders. Second, we have a strong trade pressure from the Chinese capacity to export. This is not a war pressure, but many people consider that China is massively subsidizing its economy to do an unfair competition.
Third, the ideological pressure from the U.S., which is maybe the most important one. When Vice President Vance says the U.S. are going to support all far-right parties in Europe, when Trump considers that Europe is no longer an ally, there is an ideological pressure because Europe represents what Trump and his team hate more: democracy, freedom, human rights. Peter Thiel and the ideologs of Trumpism say that democracy and freedom are incompatible, that both things cannot go together. When we have been preaching and practicing just the contrary, that democracy is the expression of freedom. So, this is the most important pressure that we face: the ideological one.
We need more integration to cope with all these pressures.
Many analysts think nothing is happening due to the weakness of too many national governments, facing elections. The 2027 electoral cycle will de facto define the future of Europe? Can we see them as European elections in bits and pieces?
Certainly! Just think that the next presidential elections in France can bring a President from the far right, that Alternative for Germany may be the most voted party, and – something unimaginable years ago – could also be ruling Germany. Then what about European integration? Where is the idea of Europe? And not just Germany and France. Until yesterday it was the case of Hungary. Europe is very much conditioned by the electoral cycles. It’s worrisome that the far right, which is not pro-European, looks like having a lot of support.
Therefore, migration can be a strong factor to dilute the EU. With what happened in Ceuta, 22 Member states – directed by Meloni, a far-right leader in government – wrote a letter blaming the Spanish government, with exactly the same language that Trump used: it is the fault of the Spanish government because they have a migration policy which is dangerous for us. Instead of supporting a country facing a hybrid attack, they blame it. Even the Commission was silent at the beginning and was quite reluctant to support the Spanish government.
We are not able to support a member state when it faces a problem – certainly not an invasion, but a great incident or accident or hybrid attack. There was no unity about defending the external borders of the EU, which Spain did. These 22 governments didn’t really even know that Ceuta was not part of the Schengen area? Among 22 member states there was not an adviser, a member of the cabinet saying that? I can’t believe it. If they knew, and still wrote the letter, this is still more worrisome.
In Germany the CDU and SPD leaders are asking the “Ursula majority” to make a formal coalition pact and the EPP to avoid cooperation with nationalist parties. What do you think?
The current Commission was elected by the European Parliament, by a centre-left coalition of popular, liberal, social democrat and green parties. This parliamentary majority elected von der Leyen on the proposal of the European Council. And now European laws are being approved by another coalition by the EPP and the far right. Only the Commission can propose legislation, and it knows who is going to support it or not. So don’t blame just the EPP for doing a coalition with the far-right. At the beginning nobody could consider a vote putting together the EPP and the far right. Now it has happened. And not for something that doesn’t matter, but on the migration and asylum policy, which is a very important issue today in Europe.
What about Spain and the 2027 elections? Do you think the Popular and Socialist could abstain to let the other form a minority government, if neither gets a majority, to avoid forcing the other to ally with nationalist forces?
In Spain this already happened in the past. The socialist party abstain in order to let the PP govern. This caused the resignation of Pedro Sánchez who disagreed with this position. The socialists were quite disappointed, because they gave the government to the PP in exchange of nothing.
Unhappily in Spain the positions of the popular party is very confrontational. It is leaning to the right and getting closer to the positions of Vox. In fact they are in an electoral competition, fighting to get more votes from the same part of the electorate.
A great coalition German style has never happened in Spain. Maybe in the future. Until now the only thing that has happened is the Spanish socialist abstaining in order to let the popular party govern without having a majority. The PP abstaining for the socialist to government without having a majority has never happened.
Do you think possible an alliance between Vox and the PP, or do you think that to avoid that the socialist would eventually abstain?
They already did once. It will depend a lot of the circumstances. If this would be the case, they could have done that on the regional elections. The socialists lost the last regional elections and in none of these cases they let the PP government alone. Nor did they offer the possibility to the PP to look for a kind of agreement. And maybe the PP would have refused it, but the proposal was never on the table. In important regions, like Andalusia the PP had to make a pact with Vox in order to get the majority. And the same thing happened in other communities. The position of the socialist party was let the PP govern with Vox. We are not going to support them not even by abstaining.
Do you think this is a contradiction for pro-European parties to behave in a way to push another one to be forced to ally with the nationalists?
Yes. But there is a Spanish particularity: the confrontation between the right and the left has deep roots that come from the civil war. This happened in Spain and maybe nowhere else. Germans accept the grand coalition of the right and the left. In Spain it’s difficult. It is also a matter of the current situation, which I don’t like. The polarization is increasing and it looks like being impossible to reach any kind of agreement on almost anything. The politics in the EU is much less confrontational and looks more for a common ground among different parties.
Caption: Josep Borrell, at that time High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, in a conversation ‘Looking back, looking forward’, 28.11.2024 [Europe by Satellite]
Updated: September 7, 2026 - 05:46
